Mueller Investigation pt4

Status
Not open for further replies.
Trebuchet said:
If he's removed from office, Pence will follow the precedent set by Ford and pardon him. If he's defeated by a Dem, however, it could get interesting. Starting when he tries to declare the election illegal and stay in office. And about 20% of the electorate will agree with that.
Click to expand...


If Trump is impeached and pardoned on federal charges, he'll still have those NY charges waiting for him.

Also there's a possibility that Pence may be probably culpable in one of these crimes, and he may be indictable without impeachment. If Pence goes first, a replacement would need to be confirmed by both the Senate and the house, which would never happen with the incoming house. There is a technical possibility of impeachment leading to President Pelosi.
 
jeremyp said:
Indictments are not evidence, they are accusations. Granted, if somebody is indicted, there is probably evidence against them. But Trump hasn’t been indicted yet. ...
Click to expand...
Lalalalalalalala.. I can't hear you. :rolleyes:

The excuses trumpeted by the right are astounding.
 
Cavemonster said:
If Trump is impeached and pardoned on federal charges, he'll still have those NY charges waiting for him.

Also there's a possibility that Pence may be probably culpable in one of these crimes, and he may be indictable without impeachment. If Pence goes first, a replacement would need to be confirmed by both the Senate and the house, which would never happen with the incoming house. There is a technical possibility of impeachment leading to President Pelosi.
Click to expand...

Possibility...may be probably culpable? That is quite an equivocation.
 
jeremyp said:
Indictments are not evidence, they are accusations. Granted, if somebody is indicted, there is probably evidence against them. But Trump hasn’t been indicted yet.
Click to expand...
Whenever I see this, and I see it frequently, I think it stretches credulity and then some. (The common form being there is no evidence.)

Maybe you mean evidence that passes the threshold for admissibility at trial? I have no opinion on that; I need to defer to the legal beagles who frequent this forum. (Er, or maybe not.) But since this isn't a legal proceeding, I don't much care about that, here where we're not bound by such rules, allowing us to weigh evidence that a jury doesn't get to see/consider.

Maybe you mean no direct evidence? Perhaps that's true; I'm not sure.

But I know this much: there's a mountain of circumstantial evidence in the public domain. Circumstantial evidence is evidence.
 
jeremyp said:
Indictments are not evidence, they are accusations.
Click to expand...

They are more than that.

In the US, a prosecutor can only issue an indictment if the evidence he presents to a Grand Jury is sufficient not to be "no-billed". In other words, when a prosecutor attempts to gain an indictment against someone, the Grand Jury must be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence against the defendant that they believe he has a case to answer.
 
jeremyp said:
Indictments are not evidence, they are accusations. Granted, if somebody is indicted, there is probably evidence against them. But Trump hasn’t been indicted yet.

Trump listens to other people?
Click to expand...
Keep it up, you look foolish. Half those charges have already resulted in convictions and guilty pleas. Why are you continuing with this 'no collusion' nonsense?
 
KDLarsen said:
And most likely never will be. All indications are that Mueller doesn't feel he have the authority to indict a sitting president, and it will be up to congress to do something with whatever he finds out. Which is why Trump and his cronies have been so busy running a smear campaign against Mueller and the investigation. And the sad thing is, it appears to be working. Or at least it was, until the last few months of the year and the indictments and sentencings that came with it.
Click to expand...

I think people are putting a lot of emphasis on something that was never tested by the SCOTUS. Wasn't it simply Nixon's AG that said that? Not that we can expect any indictments from Whitaker? Or whomever will finally follow Sessions?

It's all moot at this point. Impeachment is the next step, doubtful Trump will be indicted first.

But repeated a speculation that a sitting POTUS can't be indicted is not something the Constitution directly addresses. People should be a tad more precise tossing certainties around.
 
Stacyhs said:
I agree. Pence would pardon him if Trump is successfully impeached. That's one reason I would prefer he be defeated in 2020 as much as I'd love to see him ignominiously removed from office.
Click to expand...
There are an awful lot of charges that may take longer than Pence filling out the end of Trump's term to be filed.

Again, if one is going to toss out certainties one should be doing more than speculating.
 
jeremyp said:
Indictments are not evidence, they are accusations. Granted, if somebody is indicted, there is probably evidence against them. But Trump hasn’t been indicted yet.
Click to expand...

Indictments are not evidence in of themselves. But Grand Juries rarely issue indictments without evidence. So it is likely some evidence was presented to the Grand Jury.

And you have no idea if Trump may be an unindicted co-conspirator as Nixon was.
 
acbytesla said:
And you have no idea if Trump may be an unindicted co-conspirator as Nixon was.
Click to expand...

Here's my idea: Trump has been a lifelong scofflaw and white-collar criminal, and the chances that he's able to stand up to scrutiny in the limelight of presidency is zero. That means that there's potentially a lot of possible charges against him.

I think I'm right. I think this is just an unwinding of the inevitable, and we'll be seeing a lot of it happening this year.
 
eerok said:
Here's my idea: Trump has been a lifelong scofflaw and white-collar criminal, and the chances that he's able to stand up to scrutiny in the limelight of presidency is zero. That means that there's potentially a lot of possible charges against him.

I think I'm right. I think this is just an unwinding of the inevitable, and we'll be seeing a lot of it happening this year.
Click to expand...
I think this is an obvious no-brainer and anyone still defending this idiot is in for a rude awakening.
 
Stacyhs said:
Just don't say mischeeVEEous or bruSHetta or coup de GRAH and you'll be relatively safe. Relatively. But I can't make any promises.
Click to expand...
Now imagine being Scottish, working in tourism and hearing English speakers asking for LOCK Ness every day of the year! Good thing I have good blood pressure :)
 
Parsman said:
Now imagine being Scottish, working in tourism and hearing English speakers asking for LOCK Ness every day of the year! Good thing I have good blood pressure :)
Click to expand...
Mostly, they don't do it to irritate Scots, or because they don't know how the word ought to be pronounced. Their language simply lacks the sound required to speak the word Loch. They can hardly be blamed for that.
 
Craig B said:
Mostly, they don't do it to irritate Scots, or because they don't know how the word ought to be pronounced. Their language simply lacks the sound required to speak the word Loch. They can hardly be blamed for that.
Click to expand...
True but when you get it every day... Actually my pet peeve being from Fife is how people pronounce the town of Kirkcaldy (Kir-Caw-Dee). National TV presenters can learn to pronounce places in Utter Pradesh but not one of the most important towns in Scotland. And then they often place it in Fifeshire at which point I start throwing pillows at the screen. Like I said, just a personal thing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom